CO2 Utilization in the Ironmaking and Steelmaking Process

Kai Dong; Xueliang Wang

doi:10.20944/preprints201812.0153.v1

Comment 1

Received: 12 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile:

)
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.

Comment: I reviewed this preprint initially and I recommend to reject cause it doesn't add anything new to the knowledge of extractive metallurgy of Iron and Steel. It pretty much looks like a copy and paste from textbooks without even proper attention to organize them properly for better presentation. For example: cf. Fig.5 which shows a burner and the citation for this figure is [37] but authors only listed the references at the end of their manuscript until [33]. So, it's quite embarrassing to say that this low quality text, which is assembled based on existing textbook even not properly, is accepted to be promoted in "preprints.org" despite my initial suggestion for rejection.

+ Respond to this comment

Response 1 to Comment 1

Received: 13 December 2018
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.

Comment: Thanks for you peer review firstly.
The CO2 Utilization is a new subject for ironmaking and steelmaking, which has begun to be studied in the past ten years. The new technological advancements are summarized in this review article, which are not well known. For related field researchers in metallurgical factories and institutions, this article contains many publishable contents, which can not be readed in textbooks. The reference ID [37] is a residual mistake in modify process, and will be corrected soon.

Response 2 to Comment 1

Received: 13 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile:

)
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.

Comment: I'm still not convinced cause at the best I would say your article is just a poor assembly of existing materials from other articles, which does not add anything new to the field of CO2 utilization in Iron making and Steel making industries. For example: look at this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918303726#f0015

It's really important to put original data and contribution in articles which in your case for example could be: what is your novel plan to make CO2 utilization and green Iron making and Steel making procedures more economically efficient? It's not acceptable to assemble existing literature from internet or existing article in a poor way and make it online even as a preprint. I see in your article you didn't give any original data that is obtained by authors. If your intention is to write a review paper, that's an another story and it's not a correct way to do that. Cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3715443/

Response 3 to Comment 1

Received: 13 December 2018
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.

Comment: This review article is mainly a summary of the existing research by my research group and other researchers, and the main purpose is to sort out the application fields of co2, so the original data are all ignored. Maybe my writing ideas are not appropriate, thanks for you example article and suggestions.

Comment 2

Received: 12 December 2018
Commenter: Mehrdad Yousefi (Click to see Publons profile:

)
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.

Comment: I reviewed this preprint initially and I recommended to reject cause it doesn't add anything new to the knowledge of extractive metallurgy of Iron and Steel. It pretty much looks like a copy and paste from textbooks without even proper attention to organize them properly for better presentation. For example: cf. Fig.5 which shows a burner and the citation for this figure is [37] but authors only listed the references at the end of their manuscript until [33]. So, it's quite embarrassing to say that this low quality text, which is assembled based on existing textbooks even not properly, is accepted to be promoted in "preprints.org" despite my initial suggestion for rejection.

+ Respond to this comment

Comment 3

Received: 18 December 2018
Commenter: Martyn Rittman (Click to see Publons profile:

)
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Director of Preprints.org

Comment: This paper has been checked using Ithenticate and very low levels of copied text were found, including nothing that would suggest that significant portions have been copied from other sources, such as textbooks. The work reports a review of a recently developed area and fits with the criteria for posting on Preprints.org.

Your full name

Your affiliation information (e.g., name of your university/institution/organization)

Not displayed online.

Your Email address (not made public)

Please leave your comment to this article below.

Mathematical equations can be typed in either LaTeX formats \\[ ... \\] or $$ ... $$, or MathML format <math> ... </math>. Try the LaTeX or MathML example.

Type equation:

Preview:

Copy equation into message below

Close menu

Please click a symbol to insert it into the message box below:

Please enter the link here:

Optionally, you can enter text that should appear as linked text:

Copy link into message below

Please enter or paste the URL to the image here (please only use links to jpg/jpeg, png and gif images):

Copy image into message below

Type author name or keywords to filter the list of references in this group (you can add a new citation under Bibliography):

No existing citations in Discussion Group

Wikify editor is a simple editor for wiki-style mark-up. It was written by MDPI for Sciforum in 2014. The rendering of the mark-up is based on Wiky.php with some tweaks. Rendering of mathematical equations is done with MathJax. Please send us a message for support or for reporting bugs.

Please declare any conflicts of interest you may have with this paper, financial or otherwise.

I do not have a conflict of interest

I would like to declare a conflict of interest

Display my name on the website I want to get recognition for my comment on Publons

[what’s this?]. Link your accounts here

Captcha

I accept the following conditions:

Comments must follow the standards of professional discourse and should focus on the scientific content of the article. Insulting or offensive language, personal attacks and off-topic remarks will not be permitted. Comments must be written in English. Preprints reserves the right to remove comments without notice. Readers who post comments are obliged to declare any competing interests, financial or otherwise.

Outstanding/highlight paper		0%
Significant contribution		0%
Incremental contribution		0%
No contribution		100%

Conclusions well supported		0%
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)		0%
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)		0%
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle		100%

CO₂ Utilization in the Ironmaking and Steelmaking Process

Abstract

Subject Areas

Comments (6)

Importance: How significant is the paper to the field?

Soundness of evidence/arguments presented: